6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
January 30, 2015
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editorial Board
Publisher
Editor
Managing Editor
Mike O’Brien
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O ur V iew
Why some farmers choose to grow GMO crops
U
rban legends proliferate
on the Internet. Right
next to the latest
scuttlebutt about fad diets and
Kim Kardashian you’ll find
“facts” that opponents have
conjured up about genetically
modified crops.
Among them is a ripe old
tale about how Monsanto
“forces” farmers to use its
GMO seeds. This story has
been making the rounds for
years, and has taken on a
life of it own. In the minds
of the folks who believe it,
seed dealers and others twist
farmers’ arms to make them
plant GMO seeds so that big,
bad Monsanto can line its
pockets. A corollary to this
tale is that farmers lose money
because they have to spend
money to “blast” their GMO
crops with pesticides.
Such tales gain credence
through repetition. A quick
tour of Facebook, YouTube
and anti-GMO websites will
uncover many other urban
legends, rumors and untruths
about genetically modified
seeds.
All of which stands in stark
contrast to the experience
farmers have had with
genetically modified crops.
Snake River Sugar Co.
Chairman Duane Grant recently
talked about the experience
the cooperative’s member-
growers in Idaho and Oregon
have had with Roundup Ready
sugar beets. The plants have
been genetically modified
to withstand the herbicide
glyphosate, which Monsanto
sells as Roundup but several
other companies also sell.
The facts Grant mentioned
are real eye-openers.
He said that co-op members
planted 178,000 acres of GMO
sugar beets last year. The
growers’ cost of herbicides
has dropped from $66 per
acre to $11 per acre since they
switched from non-GMO sugar
beets in 2008. The cost of hand
labor has dropped from $60
an acre to zero, since it is no
longer needed.
And, yes, the price of seed
has increased, from $44 to
$143. But at the same time,
yields have also increased.
Overall, the net margin
increase has been $122 per
acre, said Grant, who farms
near Rupert, Idaho.
In total, the switch to
GMO sugar beets has meant
a $22 million benefit to the
cooperative and its members,
he said.
A meta-study — which
reviewed 147 other studies —
found that by growing GMO
crops farmers have reduced
pesticide use by 37 percent. At
the same time, farmers’ profits
have increased by 68 percent.
If folks are looking for the
reason farmers choose to plant
GMO crops, it can be found in
that last sentence.
Yet the urban legends will
persist, as proponents continue
to push to label GMO foods
for no significant reason or
ban growing GMO crops
because, well, they saw it on
the Internet.
Like many other activities
in life, farming is about choice.
That some farmers choose to
grow GMO crops is their right,
just as other farmers have the
right to choose to grow organic
or conventional crops.
U.S. House puts federal
regulators on notice
By ERIN ANTHONY
For the Capital Press
W
Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press
O ur V iew
Department of Labor comes to its senses
T
he U.S. Department of Labor
has finally come to its senses
and has dropped lawsuits
alleging two Oregon blueberry
growers paid pickers less than the
minimum wage.
It has also agreed to return
$220,000 it had forced the growers
to pay in 2012 to avoid having their
newly harvested berries declared “hot
goods,” which would have prevented
their sale, shipment or storage in a
commercial facility. The DOL will
also give each grower $30,000 to help
cover legal expenses.
It is a victory for liberty. What
took so long?
The dispute began in 2012 when
inspectors came to the farms during
harvest.
Using a formula of dubious
origins, the inspectors determined
that employees who recorded
picking more than a certain amount
had actually been aided by “ghost
workers.” Because pickers are paid on
a piece rate, the agency claimed each
received less than the minimum wage.
Inspectors claimed Pan-American
Berry Growers and B&G Ditchen
violated wage laws, and threatened to
have their crops declared “hot goods.”
Growers were left with the choice
of either paying a fine or losing their
crop in a protracted legal battle.
It was extortion, a blatant attempt
to deny the growers their due process
rights.
That wasn’t just our opinion.
Members of the Oregon congressional
delegation thought so, and members
of the House Agriculture Committee
told DOL officials that they thought
so, too.
More importantly, two federal
judges ruled DOL denied the growers’
due process rights because its threat
left them with no viable choice but to
pay.
Internal documents released
in civil litigation that followed
showed that the department had no
case. Of the thousands of alleged
“ghostworkers,” DOL had been able
to find but a handful.
And rather than be chastened
when the courts set aside the original
settlements, the DOL doubled
down and amended the original
complaints to claim that the farms
also unlawfully withheld wages
and hired pickers “off the books”
in 2010 and 2011. It also sought
to add defendants, and asked for a
permanent “hot goods” injunction.
Thankfully it appears someone
at DOL headquarters has finally
pulled the plug on the whole sad
affair.
Our government is tasked with
protecting the due process rights
of its citizens, and respecting the
outcome of the process. When instead
it tries to repress those rights and
takes vindictive police action against
its vindicated target, it becomes
oppressive and shares the traits of a
totalitarian state.
ith the launch of
a new oversight
subcommittee fo-
cusing on the administra-
tion’s energy and environ-
mental policies and House
passage of the Regulatory
Accountability Act, H.R.
185, House lawmakers are
putting the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency and
other agencies on notice:
Business as usual is over.
In both the Clean Air
Act and Clean Water Act,
Congress set out policies
that regulators are sup-
posed to follow. Yes, EPA
and other regulatory bod-
ies do have some leeway in
writing and implementing
the regulations for these
laws and many others.
Over the years, however,
where Congress gave EPA
an inch, the agency has
taken a mile. Both the pro-
posed Waters of the U.S.
rule and the proposed reg-
ulations related to new and
existing coal-fired power
plants overstep the regu-
latory authority Congress
granted the agency in the
Clean Water Act and the
Clean Air Act, respectively.
With House action to
tighten the reins on the reg-
ulators less than a month
into the new Congress, law-
makers are setting a clear
agenda, and close to the top
of that agenda is holding
regulators’ feet to the fire.
In late December, Rep.
Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah,
newly appointed chair
of the House Oversight
and Government Reform
Committee, announced he
would form a new panel,
the Interior Subcommittee,
to watch over the EPA, as
well as the Agriculture,
Energy and Interior depart-
ments. Responsibility for
those agencies previously
fell to two subcommittees,
one that focused on energy
and the other on regulatory
affairs.
Chaffetz’s concerns ar-
en’t exclusively with regu-
latory policy. General mis-
A small victory for private property rights
P
roponents of private property
rights won a small victory
this month in Bannock
County, Idaho.
At issue was a grass-covered,
private farm road that wends its
way from a public road across four
privately owned parcels to the U.S.
Forest Service’s Bell Marsh Creek
area near McCammon. For decades
the owners have allowed locals to
use the trace to access their favorite
public hunting grounds in the
national forest.
For several years there was a
gate across the road. As long as
people didn’t let the cows out and
picked up after themselves, the
owners turned a blind eye to the
trespass.
The Forest Service’s Pocatello
office recently asked counties to
clarify their lists of active public
land accesses.
While the Bell Marsh Creek
access appeared on Forest Service
maps, owners of the property had
never granted a formal easement
to either the feds or to Bannock
County. More importantly, neither
had ever offered up any payment
for such an easement and the
owners have continued to pay full
taxes on the trace.
The county attorney
recommended that the commission
validate the path as a public
access, arguing a prescriptive
easement exists because people
have been using it since at least
the 1940s. Such a taking would
not have required the owners be
compensated.
He later changed his mind —
not because he recognized the
owners’ rights but because the
county couldn’t afford to patrol or
maintain another public road.
At any rate, county
commissioners have rejected the
plan. The owners keep control of
their property.
The battle to maintain private
property rights is won in small
skirmishes. Small victories have a
cumulative impact.
Guest
comment
Erin Anthony
management
and personnel problems
are also very much on his
radar. In addition, he has
been vocal about what he
sees as unlawful limits on
the ability of Utahans to
access federal lands, which
comprise two-thirds of his
state. Chaffetz has appoint-
ed Rep. Cynthia Lummis,
R-Wyo., to lead the sub-
committee.
The Regulatory Ac-
countability Act, which
passed with bipartisan sup-
port in the House last week,
would give all stakeholders
a greater voice in a federal
regulatory process that is
too often one-sided.
The legislation provides
a much-needed update
to the nearly seven-de-
cades-old Administrative
Procedures Act, which
needs to be amended to
ensure that the public and
the regulated community,
in particular, are afforded
a transparent, fair and open
regulatory process.
The bill would require
agencies to be more open
and transparent on data
justifying a rule. The most
costly rules would be sub-
ject to on-the-record hear-
ings. Agencies would be
required to consider such
rules’ impact on jobs and
the economy. Moreover,
agencies’ ability to use
guidance and interim final
rules would be constrained.
Farmers and ranchers
are optimistic lawmakers’
efforts will bring EPA and
other regulatory agencies’
real mission back into fo-
cus: to execute the laws
passed by Congress in the
least costly way and, with
strong public input, to find
the most efficient regulato-
ry solutions that benefit all
Americans.
Erin Anthony is editor
of FBNews, the American
Farm Bureau Federation’s
official e-newsletter.
Letters policy
Write to us: Capital Press
welcomes letters to the editor
on issues of interest to farmers,
ranchers and the agribusiness
community.
Letters policy: Please limit letters
to 300 words and include your
home address and a daytime
telephone number with your
submission. Longer pieces,
500-750 words, may be con-
sidered as guest commentary
pieces for use on the opinion
pages. Guest commentary sub-
missions should also include a
photograph of the author.
Send letters via email to opinions@
capitalpress.com. E-mailed letters
are preferred and require less time to
process, which could result in quicker
publication. Letters may also be sent
to P.O. Box 2048, Salem, OR 97308.